No Wilson was softly pro-Entente.
You're still getting it backwards.
Wilson was pro-Entente in the same manner that US banks and businesses were pro-Entente: The Ententes' goals and desires happened to be in "synch" more often with Wilson's goals and desires than the Central Powers' goals and desires.
It wasn't a case of Wilson saying
"Because I am pro-Entente, I will shape my policies in this manner."
Instead, it was a case of Wilson saying
"These are my policies, policies of which the Entente happens to partially share."
He wanted what was in the best interest of the US as far as his ideals were concerned, which he felt an Entente victory was part of.
Precisely. The Entente and an Entente victory was more in "synch" with what Wilson felt were the best interests of the US.
There were massive differences between the British and German blockade, but I wasn't discussing that issue.
Yes you are. You're stating that the British blockade was the equivalent to the German blockade because both were illegal under international law. What you're overlooking, perhaps deliberately, is the fact that there are different levels of illegality.
The Kaiser made the same complaint to the US ambassador you're making here and the US ambassador explained the differences in illegality to him in the same way I've repeatedly explained to you: Britain was walking through someone's flower beds while Germany was breaking into someone's home and committing murder.
Pedantically there is no difference. In the real world, however, there is a huge difference and in the real world that difference mattered greatly.
That was the entire point of WJB conflict with the Wilson administration, as US companies were no longer allowed to directly trade with Germany, AH, Bulgaria, or the Ottoman Empire, which was in direct violation of neutral rights in maritime law, not the London Declaration.
Bryant was a wooly-headed idealist who was only present in the Cabinet because Wilson intended from the start to act as his own Secretary of State. Bryant was an empty man filling an empty chair and his objections were routinely ignored for that reason.
I think you are starting to purposely misconstrue my arguments. I did not equate the British and French with the Russians; rather I grouped them together to make my argument because they were the Entente, just as I grouped the Germans, AH, Bulgarians and Ottomans despite these nations having different records of treating their minorities and allowing self governance.
You grouped them together because you want to ignore the huge changes in Wilson and the situation between the time when Wilson first articulated the 14 Points and the time when Wilson went to Versailles.
When he first presented the 14 Points, Wilson was an avowed neutral who was going to fix everyone's problems thanks to his superior intellect and morality while reaping their fulsome praise. When Wilson went to Versailles, Wilson was a holy warrior and part of a victorious alliance which had just defeated the enemies of civilization and made the world safe for democracy.
Those two Wilsons and their thinking cannot be compared.
Suggesting that holy warrior Wilson of Versailles was going to insist that 14 Points be imposed equally on his allies and his enemies is nonsense. Failing to comprehend that the holy warrior Wilson of Versailles was completely different from the priest king Wilson of the 14 Points is a fatal flaw at the heart of your suggestions.
I'm not 'imposing my 2011' views of human rights on the situation and I challenge you to cite exactly where I do that.
Right here in Post #19:
... Russian empire, Britain with Ireland, France with Corsica and Breton, not to mention the efforts to suppress regionalism throughout the nation, often through violating human rights...
Wilson didn't even support human rights in the US, so suggesting he somehow kowtowed to the Entente and backed down from a position supporting human rights ignores the facts, the man, and the times.
I'm using 1914-1918 values to note that Wilson did not apply the same standards in his 14 points to the Entente and Central Powers.
Again, the standards changed because Wilson went to war. Once the US went to war the 14 Points, fully or in part, were not going to be applied to the Entente. Instead, the victors were going to impose the 14 Points on the Central Powers.
Honestly of all nations at that time, the worst offender by the standards of the day were the Russians...
And Wilson wasn't alone when he remarked that the collapse of Czarist Russia neatly removed the problems supporting Czarist Russia raised.
Wilson did fight for his 14 points...
He fought for them to be imposed on the losers and then not even all of the losers because the 14 Points and all the rest of Wilson's "benevolence" only applied to whites and "honorary" whites as the Japanese delegation would soon learn.
Complaining that the holy warrior Wilson at Versailles didn't treat his enemies like his allies ignores how Wilson and the situation had changed.
Insulting me and calling it a kindness if quite a leap.
I didn't insult you. I pointed out your incomprehension of the facts just as you were kind enough to point out my incomprehension of the facts regarding the A-H government.
Among other things, you thought the Federal Reserve ordered US banks to loan to the Entente and you thought the London Declaration proscribed selling goods instead of allowing certain goods to be legally seized.
You can keep that sort of kindness and argue without resulting to blanket condemnations of my points, which often don't relate to what I'm even discussing.
I'm not making a blanket condemnation of you points. I am pointing out that the thinking behind much of them is flawed because of an incomprehension of the facts. I didn't comprehend the nature of the A-H Empire's internal politics and you were kind enough to explain them to me. You didn't comprehend the role of the Federal Reserve or how Entente economic penetration shaped US policies and I tried to explain that to you.
If I've wounded your feelings you have my sincere apologies. I will also retire from this thread so as not to cause further offense, inadvertent as it was on my part.